Partly allowed

M/S Mott Macdonald Private Ltd. v. Union of India

Delhi HC13 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/196/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged blacklisting from N.H. projects. Respondent conceded lack of specific notice. Court set aside blacklisting, directed fresh show-cause notice with explicit debarment warning, and imposed disclosure obligations during pending pendency.

What did the court decide?

Communication of 17 Dec 2015 set aside; respondent directed to issue fresh show-cause notice with liberty to disclose pendency in tenders.

M/S Mott Macdonald Private Ltd. Vs Union… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

- W.P.(C) 196/2016 & CM APPL. 809/2016

¶5

M/S MOTT MACDONALD PRIVATE LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajshekhar Rao with Mr. K. Harshvardhan, Advocates and Mr. Roger King, AR

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Mr. Sumit Rajaput, Govt. Pleader.

¶8

Date of Decision : 13^th January, 2016

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

¶13

Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of communication dated 17^th December, 2015, whereby respondent blacklisted the petitioner from participating in any future work relating to National Highways and other centrally sponsored schemes for a period of one year. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that neither sufficient notice nor an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner inasmuch as in the show cause notice it was not mentioned that petitioner could be blacklisted/debarred if its response was not found to be satisfactory. In support of his submission, he relies upon judgment of Supreme Court in

¶14

W.P.(C) 196/2016

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 .

¶17

Keeping in view the aforesaid, learned standing counsel for respondent on instruction wishes to withdraw the communication dated 17^th December, 2015 with liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks specifically stating that petitioner could be debarred/blacklisted, if its response was not found to be satisfactory.

¶18

Accordingly, the communication dated 17^th December, 2015 is set aside as withdrawn and respondent is given liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice of debarment/blacklisting. It is directed that, in the event petitioner participates in any future tender issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways till the fresh show cause notice is decided, the petitioner shall disclose in its bid that a show cause notice for debarment/blacklisting is pending against it. It is also directed that if the petitioner is subsequently debarred/ blacklisted, then the tenders submitted by it shall be considered as non-responsive. However, this is without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file appropriate proceedings to challenge any adverse order that may be passed against it in response to the new show cause notice.

¶19

It is further directed that the withdrawal of communication dated 17^th December, 2015 as well as subsequent show cause notice shall also be communicated in the same manner as was the impugned order.

¶20

With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition and application stand disposed of.

¶21

MANMOHAN, J

¶22

JANUARY 13, 2016/ rn

¶23

W.P.(C) 196/2016

¶24

Page 2 of 2

M/S Mott Macdonald Private Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mott Macdonald Private Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabin Kishore Chouhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Naveen Kumar Anand (Retd.) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Neelam Kaura Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Rajesh Sachdeva Vs Union of India & Ors.

Prashant Chauhan Vs Tribunal (Under Maintenance & Welfare of the Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007) (Central District

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs Ved Prakash Gupta and Anr.

Npsc Co-Operative Group Housingh Society Ltd. Vs Shashi Sood & Others

Rahul & Ors. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

Sh. Deb Dulal Halder Vs D.D.A.

Sanatam Dharam Sabha Laxmi Narain Temple Trust Vs Shanti Devi

Indian Youth Centres Trust Vs National Association of Software and Service Companies

Rajinder Kumar & Others Vs Jagdish Chander & Others

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Sukhbeer Singh

Mahender Pal Goyal Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited